The purpose in presenting this information is to provide data supporting the contention that fire alarm systems and fire sprinklers in high-rise office buildings provide the true life/safety functions required to protect the occupants' health and safety. The data also shows that the dangers associated with smoke in past experiences would not have been greatly reduced with a smoke control system in place. And, the data will support the contention that if fire sprinklers had been installed, the dangers would have been greatly reduced, and as such, a smoke control system would not have provided substantial additional benefit.

"High-Rise Building Fires" Report Data

While the majority of fires and associated losses occurred in high-rise apartment buildings, Table 1 indicates that only 10.3% of the fires took place in high-rise office buildings.

As indicated in Table 2, information provided during the period of 1993 to 1997 indicated that in buildings 7-12 stories in height, there were 320 fires, with a total property loss of $6 million. (The cost of smoke control for a project of this size is estimated at $500,000.) It should be noted, however, that no deaths occurred in office buildings greater than three stories during the five-year period.

NFPA's current (2000 edition) Life Safety Code, similar to previous editions, has provisions for existing as well as new high-rise buildings for each of the four property classes. (This supports the mandatory installation of fire sprinklers in all buildings, including existing buildings.) Fire sprinklers account for a 90% reduction in the rate of deaths per 1,000 fires (for the other three property classes, office buildings had zero deaths) and at least a 42% reduction in the average dollar loss per fire for each of the four property classes. Other systems installed provided the following statistics:

• Smoke alarms--61% reduction in the rate.

• Fire resistive construction--32% reduction in the rate.

It should be noted that smoke control did not provide any reduction in the rate of property loss during the five-year span studied.

The following evidence shows the value of using all these systems (fire protection systems, sprinklers, alarms, smoke detection, etc.) in high-rise buildings, as they keep the fire and smoke confined to the room, or at least the floor of fire origin.

Of the total 610 fires:

• In 570, fire and smoke were confined to room of origin.

• In 20, fire and smoke were confined to floor of origin.

• In 20, fire and smoke reached beyond floor of origin.

The report also provides a summary of research concerning smoke damage in high-rise office buildings. The research indicates that of the total of 610 fires, the breakdown of smoke damage was as follows:

• In 80, there was no smoke damage.

• In 310, smoke damage was confined to room of origin.

• In 100, smoke damage was confined to floor of origin.

• In 120, smoke damage reached beyond floor of origin (less than 20%).

In summary, the report offers the following statement:

"In any particular occupancy, high-rise buildings that have fires are much more likely to have sprinklers, detection/alarm systems, and the compartmentalization features associated with fire-resistive construction than lower-height buildings (of the same occupancy) that have fires. However, considering the extensive requirements in the Life Safety Code for fire and life safety features in both new and existing high-rise buildings, it seems clear that there are still major gaps, particularly in adoption and enforcement of the provisions requiring retrofit of automatic sprinkler systems and other life safety systems in existing high-rise buildings."

"High-Rise Fatal Fires--Office Buildings" Report Data

Rockefeller Plaza Fire (11 Stories)

The review of this fire and the facts surrounding it provided a list of the reasons the fire started and the damage that was caused. The research summarized its findings by listing eight significant contributing factors (none of which included smoke control):

1. Inadequate circuit protection

2. Lack of adequate space of electrical conductors

3. Unprotected vertical and horizontal penetrations

4. Lack of fire sprinklers

5. Lack of smoke detection

6. Confusing building layout

7. Failure of building fire alarm system

8. Multiple points of origin

Based on this information, smoke control would not have provided any additional protection in the fire. Therefore, the smoke control system would have been a waste of money and may have provided a false sense of security for the occupants.

World Trade Center (Seven Buildings)--First Event (Not 9/11)

This tragic event is probably the most well-known of recent fires due to the nature of its origin. Terrorist action caused the explosion and the corresponding smoke.

The buildings were surveyed for their operation during the emergency. Upon completion of the survey, the conclusions provided in the study were as follows:

--Six deaths due to explosion, zero deaths due to smoke.

--Smoke in stairwells, due to the explosion damaging the lower floors' entrance into the stairwells.

--Emergency power turned off by fire department (so smoke control system would not have operated).

--Smoke movement could not have been prevented due to the explosion.

--"15 minutes after the explosion occurred, the smoke-filled stairways were plunged into darkness when the remaining normal and emergency electrical power supply was shut down, adding to the difficulty and confusion of the situation."

--"However, none of the deaths at the complex were attributed to the effects of smoke, despite the occupants' prolonged exposure and the lengthy evacuation."

--"Systems are widely considered to have been state-of-the-art for the period in which the complex was built. However, the violent explosion negated the potential protection that many of the existing systems provided."(These statements are quoted from the text of the report.)

The stairwells filled with smoke due to the explosions. Smoke had not migrated to the floors where floor smoke control systems (if installed) may have provided some degree of protection. Therefore, the rated doors into the stairwells provided the only protection needed by preventing the smoke from migrating to the floors.

Peachtree Fire, Atlanta, Georgia

A synopsis of the survey performed after the fire provided the following observations:

--Smoke spread through corridor from the electrical room.

--Smoke spread from ceiling falling in due to fire, no sprinklers.

--"First, smoke from the fire in the room of origin quickly began to fill the corridor and advanced ahead of the flame front. The smoke entered the office spaces through doors that were left open, through cracks and openings around closed doors."

--"Second, the ceiling collapsed outside the room of fire origin."

Summary of Fire Surveys

In each of the fires in this report, the majority of the damage was caused by the lack of fire sprinkler systems. In the case of the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles, fire sprinklers were being installed but had not yet been activated at the time of the fire.

Smoke control systems would not have provided substantial additional benefits to the occupants during the fire. If a smoke control system would not have provided substantial additional benefit, then why require the installation of the systems in the newer high-rise office buildings?

Fire Sprinkler Effectiveness

• 34 fires with one sprinkler head

• 5 fires with two sprinkler heads

• 1 fire with three sprinkler heads

• 1 fire with four sprinkler heads

• No fires required more than four sprinkler heads

Based on the results of this study, no fire in a high-rise office building occurring through natural causes would contain a fire large enough to require the operation of a smoke control system for the safety of the occupants.

Smoke Control Discussion

The losses due to fire in any building that does not contain fire sprinklers are not comparable to high-rise office buildings with fire sprinklers. Additionally, any deaths in stairwells without stairwell pressurization cannot be delineated as preventable by a UBC 1991 code "smoke control" system.

Study Conclusion

Based upon this data, it seems the need for smoke control systems is no longer present. The International Building Code (IBC 2000) does not even include the requirement for smoke control for high-rise office buildings. Requiring smoke control systems in high-rise office buildings ignores the data and misplaces the public's trust in the code making bodies.

It should always be an owner's intent to protect the health and safety of the property's occupants. However, no one wants to install a system, especially at a high cost, that is of very little, if any, benefit to the occupants during a fire. Instead, protect the public by requiring fire sprinklers in residential buildings. This will truly save lives, as opposed to this ill-advised code for high-rise office buildings that already provide adequate safety to the occupants.